Follow us on social

Lobby Horse

Welcome to the 'Lobby Horse'

Hiding in plain sight: New column will expose stealth corruption infecting US foreign policy making.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

“I don’t need anybody’s money…I’m not using the lobbyists. I’m not using the donors,” proudly proclaimed Donald Trump in his 2016 campaign for president that, like his other campaigns, was laced with disdain for how money drives politics in the U.S. He, of course, did take hundreds of millions of dollars in donor money (some of it from lobbyists) in his 2016, 2020, and 2024 campaigns.

And, he certainly wasn’t the only politician railing against the corrosive impact of money in politics. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) famously vowed to “get corporate money out of politics,” in his 2016 presidential campaign and regularly advertised that his average donation was just $27.

Rhetoric like this from Trump and Sanders works extraordinarily well because it strikes a nerve in an American public that really doesn’t trust its government and despises money’s corrupt influence on our politics.

The public’s trust in government is near all-time lows. Last year, the Pew Research Center found that just 23% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right “just about always” or most of the time. That figure was 75% when Pew first began asking the question in 1958. These abysmal levels of trust in government are mirrored by enormous distrust of “experts.” Just 48% of respondents to a 2022 survey said that “public policy experts” were “valuable” to society. Why the skepticism of policy experts? According to the survey, the number one reason was “suspecting the expert may have a hidden agenda.”

Sadly, their suspicions are absolutely right. And, in few areas is the corrosive impact of money in politics more apparent than in U.S. foreign policy. D.C. has become awash in cash from special interests that profit from America’s endless wars. Campaign coffers are flooded with money from the arms industry, but that’s just the beginning. Many of the experts you see on TV, hear on the radio, or read in mainstream newspapers do, in fact, work at organizations that cash huge checks from Pentagon contractors and foreign governments that profit — financially or otherwise — from America’s military conflicts. Those media outlets themselves are often cashing checks from war profiteers who are all too eager to buy their ad space.

This elite-driven boondoggle is the reason why the Pentagon continues to invest billions of dollars in jets and ships that don’t work, why the U.S. is funneling arms to two-thirds of all current global conflicts, and why lawmakers spend their time auditioning as lobbyists instead of representing their constituents. Most importantly, the American people are paying more for national security every year and getting less of it.

I know all of this firsthand. It’s actually my job to know this. And, unfortunately, business is good. In just the last six months, I’ve documented how the lobbyists for foreign governments work to militarize U.S. foreign policy and how foreign policy think tanks — the employers of many of the experts the public has grown to distrust — are flooded with cash from foreign governments and Pentagon contractors. In short, it’s a target-rich environment for someone that investigates D.C.’s influence-peddling machine and — as much as I enjoy the gainful employment — that is a problem.

The public needs to understand the truth behind how U.S. foreign policy is actually being created. But, just knowing how the sausage is made doesn’t make it any easier to swallow. In fact, it can make it much harder and, ultimately, contribute to the crisis of confidence in government. Exposing corruption — both the illegal and perfectly legal varieties — is a necessary step, but it must be followed by actions that fix the broken system itself.

That is why we’re starting this column: the Lobby Horse. We’ll track the trojan horse that is the money behind U.S. foreign policy and, ultimately, work to stop it from leading us into the next endless war. We want readers to get the stories behind the stories in U.S. foreign policy so you can see in real-time how money is moving America’s foreign policy. We’ll be going behind the scenes of the latest money-in-politics scandals that are making headlines, while also doing deep dives into corruption investigations that mainstream media outlets all too often ignore. All this is with one goal in mind: to inform American people how U.S. foreign policy is actually being created and what we, together, can do to fix it.

If this sounds like your cup of tea, tune in every other Tuesday. The column will usually be written by me, but we’ll also have contributions from other Quincy Institute muckrakers, like Bill Hartung and Nick Cleveland-Stout.

Regardless of who has the pen that week, I’ll promise you this: you’ll see a side of foreign policy that you won’t see anywhere else. Buckle up, the Lobby Horse is going to be a wild ride.


Top image credit: Khody Akhavi
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.